Alexander Hamilton Case Analysis

The federal government needs to act directly on the individual. To explain why this is the case, we must first begin by explaining why governments are implemented among men. According to Alexander Hamilton, Human nature has proven that, “The passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.” (Hamilton, 1961) Therefore, governments have been implemented among men as a means of bridling the passions of individuals which undermine the dictates of reason and justice. To carry out these objectives, legitimate governments are given two powers; 1. The power to enact laws which promote the general welfare of its subjects, and 2. The power to enforce those laws on its subjects. Now we turn to the question …show more content…
Of course, it is preferred that laws be enforced by the “mild influence” of a civil officer rather than by the brutal force of an army. However, this method of coercion can only operate if the government is given authority to act directly on individuals. This is due to the fact that men behave differently as individually than they do collectively. The mild hand of the magistrate can govern only if the people are willing to acquiesce to his authority. And by nature, men are more mild, timid, and compliant when they act alone. Consequently, if the government is given power to act directly on the individual, less force will be needed to enforce the law. In contrast, when men come together as groups, “they overcome the vulnerability of their individual bodies and the sense of limits which is connected with and enforced by their weakness.” (Epstein, 1984) For this reason, the mild hand of the magistrate is by necessity replaced with the iron fist of military force when dealing with a collective body. Therefore, attempting to limit the scope of government’s authority to groups rather than individuals inadvertently increases governmental